The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 139

Ford, Mrs. E. C. Buffam, Mrs. Cora A. Jones, Mrs. Clara M. Wilson; _Wisconsin_, Laura Ross Wolcott, M. Josephine Pearce, Eliza T.

Wilson, H. S. Brown; _Minnesota_, Sarah Burger Stearns; _Kansas_, Susan E. Wattles, Elsie Stewart, Henrietta L. Miller, Lottie Griffin, Jane M. Burke, Malura Hickson, Elsie J. Miller; _Colorado_, Alida C. Avery; _Ohio_, Sarah R. L. Williams, Margaret V. Longley; _England_, Lydia E. Becker, Caroline A. Biggs, Jessie M. Wellstood.

CHAPTER x.x.x.

CONSt.i.tUTION OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE a.s.sOCIATION.

ARTICLE 1. This organization shall be called the NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE a.s.sOCIATION.

ARTICLE 2. The object of this a.s.sociation shall be to secure NATIONAL Protection for women in the exercise of their right to vote.

ARTICLE 3. All citizens of the United States subscribing to this Const.i.tution, and contributing not less than one dollar annually, shall be considered members of the a.s.sociation, with the right to partic.i.p.ate in its deliberations.

ARTICLE 4. The officers of this a.s.sociation shall be a President, a Vice-President from each of the States and Territories, Corresponding and Recording Secretaries, a Treasurer and an Executive Committee of not less than five.

ARTICLE 5. A quorum of the Executive Committee shall consist of nine, and all officers of this a.s.sociation shall be _ex-officio_ members of the committee, with power to vote.

ARTICLE 6. All woman suffrage societies throughout the country shall be welcomed as auxiliaries, and their accredited officers or duly appointed representatives shall be recognized as members of the National a.s.sociation.

OFFICERS OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE a.s.sOCIATION, 1886.

_President_--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Tenafly, N. J.

_Vice-Presidents-at-Large_--Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.; Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine, Wis.; Phoebe W. Couzins, St. Louis, Mo.; Abigail Scott Duniway, Portland, Ore.

_Honorary Vice-Presidents_--Ernestine L. Rose, London, England; Priscilla Holmes Drake, Huntsville, Ala.; Mrs. Perry Spear, Eureka Springs, Ark.; Sarah. J. Wallis, Mayfield; Sarah Knox Goodrich, San Jose, Cal.; Mary F. s.h.i.+elds, Colorado Springs, Col.; Rev. Phebe A.

Hanaford, New Haven, Conn.; Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Sioux Falls, Dak. Ter.; Rosina M. Parnell, Susan A. Edson, M. D., Ellen M.

O'Connor, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.; Catherine V. Waite, Myra Bradwell, Chicago, Ill.; Zerelda G. Wallace, Indianapolis; Eliza Hamilton, Fort Wayne, Ind.; Amelia Bloomer, Council Bluffs; Mary V. Cowgill, West Liberty, Ia.; Prudence Crandall Philleo, Elk Falls; Mary T.

Gray, Wyandotte; Mary A. Humphrey, Junction City, Kan.; Elizabeth H. Duval, Rinaldo, Ky.; Ann T. Greeley, Ellsworth; Lucy A. Snow, Rockland, Me.; Anna Ella Carroll, Baltimore, Md.; Sarah E. Wall, Worcester; Paulina Gerry, Stoneham, Ma.s.s.; Catherine A. F.

Stebbins, Detroit, Mich.; Charlotte O. Van Cleve, Minneapolis, Minn.; Caroline Johnson Todd, St. Louis, Mo.; Harriet S. Brooks, Omaha, Neb.; Eliza E. Morrill, Sarah H. Pillsbury, Concord; Mary Powers Filley, North Haverhill, N. H.; Sarah G. Hurn, Vineland; Delia Stewart Parnell, Bordentown, N. J.; Clemence S. Lozier, M.

D., New York; Amy Post, Rochester; Sarah H. Hallock, Milton; Mary R. Pell, Flus.h.i.+ng, N. Y.; Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Hollywood, N. C.; Sophia O. Allen, South Newbury; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo; Louise Southworth, Cleveland, O.; Harriet W. Williams, Portland, Ore.; M. Adeline Thomson, Philadelphia, Penn.; Catherine C.

Knowles, East Greenwich; Elizabeth B. Chace, Valley Falls, R. I.; Elizabeth Van Lew, Richmond, Va.; Mary Olney Brown, Abbie H. H.

Stuart, Olympia, Wash. Ter.; Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee; Emma C.

Bascom, Madison, Wis.

_Vice-Presidents_--Caroline M. Patterson, Harrison, Ark.; Ellen Clarke Sargent, San Francisco, Cal.; Mrs. L. J. Terry, Pueblo, Col.; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Hartford, Conn.; Marietta M. Bones, Webster City, Dak.; Mary A. Stewart, Greenwood, Del.; Ruth C.

Dennison, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.; Mrs. C. B. S. Wilc.o.x, Interlachen, Fla.; Althea L. Lord, Savannah, Ga.; Dr. Jennie Bearby, Mountain Home, Idaho; Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Evanston, Ill.; Helen M.

Gougar, Lafayette, Ind.; Jane Amy McKinney, Decorah, Ia.; Laura M.

Johns, Salina Kan.; Mary B. Clay, Richmond, Ky.; Caroline E.

Merrick, New Orleans, La.; Sophronia C. Snow, Hampden Corners, Me.; Caroline Hallowell Miller, Sandy Spring, Md.; Harriette R.

Shattuck, Malden, Ma.s.s.; Fannie Holden Fowler, Manistee, Mich.; Sarah Burger Stearns, Duluth, Minn.; Olivia Fitzhugh, Vicksburg, Miss.; Virginia L. Minor, St. Louis, Mo.; Clara Bewick Colby, Beatrice, Neb.; Maria H. Boardman, Reno, Nev.; Ada M. Jarrett, Magdalena, N. Mex.; Marilla M. Ricker, Dover, N. H.; Cornelia C.

Hussey, East Orange, N. J.; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York, N. Y.; Mary Bayard Clarke, New Berne, N. C.; Frances D. Cas.e.m.e.nt, Painesville, O.; Harriette A. Loughary, McMinneville, Ore.; Matilda Hindman, Pittsburgh, Penn.; Anna S. Aldrich, Providence, R. I.; Elizabeth Lisle Saxon, Memphis, Tenn.; Jennie Bland Beauchamp, Denton, Tex.; Jennie A. Froiseth, Salt Lake City, Utah; Lydia Putnam, Brattleboro', Vt.; Mrs. Roger S. Greene, Seattle, Wash.

Ter.: Alura C. Collins, Milwaukee, Wis.; Amalia B. Post, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

_Executive Committee_--May Wright Sewall, _Chairman_, 429 North New Jersey street, Indianapolis, Ind.; Laura DeForce Gordon, San Francisco; Mary J. Channing, Pasadena, Cal.; Dr. Alida C. Avery, Denver, Col.; Frances Ellen Burr, Emily P. Collins, Hartford, Conn.; Mrs. J. S. Pickler, Falktown; Linda W. Slaughter, Bismark, Dak. Ter.; Belva A. Lockwood, Dr. Caroline B. Winslow, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.; Flora M. Wright, Drayton Island, Fla.; Julia Mills Dunn, Moline; Rev. Florence Kollock, Englewood; Dr. Alice B. Stockham, Ada C. Sweet, Chicago, Ill.; Mary E. Haggart, Mary E. N. Cary, Indianapolis, Ind.; Narcisa T. Bemis, Independence; Mary J.

Coggeshall, Des Moines, Ia; Annie C. Wait, Lincoln Center; Henrietta B. Wall, Mrs. S. A. Hauk, Hutchinson, Kan.; Sally Clay Bennett, Mary A. Somers, Richmond; Laura White, Manchester, Ky.; Maria I. Johnson, Mound, La.; Charlotte A. Thomas, Portland, Me.; Amanda M. Best, Bright Seat, Md.; Harriet H. Robinson, Malden; Sara A. Underwood, Dorchester Ma.s.s.; Julia Upton, Big Rapids; Cordelia Fitch Briggs, Grand Rapids, Mich.; Julia Bullard Nelson, Red Wing: Mrs. L. H. Hawkins, Shakopee; Mary P. Wheeler, Ka.s.son, Minn.; Anne R. Irvine, Oregon; Elizabeth A. Meriwether, St. Louis, Mo.; Jennie F. Holmes, Tec.u.mseh; Orpha C. Dinsmoore, Omaha, Neb.; Hannah R.

Clapp, Carson City, Nev.; Mrs. A. B. I. Roberts, Candia, N. H.; Augusta Cooper Bristol, Vineland; Theresa A. Seabrook, Keyport, N.

J.; Mathilde F. Wendt, New York; Caroline G. Rogers, Lansingburgh; Ellen S. Fray, Lewia C. Smith, Rochester, N. Y.; Sarah M. Perkins, Elvira J. Bushnell, Cleveland; Sarah S. Bissell, Toledo, O.; Mrs.

J. M. Kelty, Lafayette, Ore.; Deborah L. Pennock, Kennett Square; Harriet Purvis, Philadelphia, Penn.; Lillie Chace Wyman, Valley Falls, R. I.; Lide Meriwether, Memphis, Tenn.; Mrs. D. Clinton Smith, Middleboro', Vt.; Mrs. F. D. Gordon, Richmond, Va.; Eliza T.

Wilson, Menomonie; Laura James, Richland Center, Wis.; Barbara J, Thompson, Tacoma, Wash. Ter.; Mrs. J. H. Hayford, Laramie City, Wyoming Ter.

_Recording Secretaries_--Julia A. Wilbur, Caroline A. Sherman, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.

_Corresponding Secretaries_--Rachel G. Foster, Philadelphia, Penn.; Ellen H. Sheldon, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.

_Foreign Corresponding Secretaries_--Caroline A. Biggs, London; Lydia E. Becker, Manchester, England; Marguerite Berry Stanton, Hubertine Auclert, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Paris, France; Clara Neymann, Berlin, Germany.

_Treasurer_--Jane H. Spofford, Riggs House, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.

_Auditors_--Eliza T. Ward, Ellen M. O'Connor, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.

CHAPTER x.x.xII.

CONNECTICUT.

_Is the Family the Basis of the State?_

BY JOHN HOOKER.

The proposition that the family is the basis of the State has come down through many generations, so far as I know, unchallenged; but in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood, and for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, it is entirely a fallacy.

The State depends upon the family for the continuance of its population, just as it depends upon the school for the intelligence of its people and on religious inst.i.tutions for their morality.

But the State stands in no political relation to the family any more than to the school and the church. What is meant by the proposition as generally used is, that the State is politically an aggregate of families and not of individuals. This is entirely untrue, and if true the fact would be calamitous. Civil government is supposed to have had its origin in family government, the patriarch becoming chief of a tribe which was substantially the outgrowth and expansion of a single family; but if a nation was to be formed of such tribes it would be essential to its peace and prosperity that they should as soon as possible mingle into one h.o.m.ogeneous ma.s.s, and that no citizen should consider himself of one tribe rather than another. It is the family idea in a government like ours that makes the feuds which are handed down from generation to generation in some parts of the country. It made the frequent b.l.o.o.d.y contests of the clans in Scotland, and the dissensions of the Hebrew tribes. In a republic nothing can be more disastrous than that great political leaders should have large family followings. The first duty of the citizen is to forget that he belongs to any family in particular. He is an individual citizen of the State, and when he becomes a magistrate he must practically ignore the fact that he has family relatives who feel ent.i.tled to his special favor. He must, like justice, be blind to every fact except that the applicant for office or for justice is an individual citizen and must stand wholly on his personal merits or the justice of his cause.

The proposition that the family is the basis of the State thus taken by itself is entirely false; but even if true, the use made of it as an argument against giving suffrage to women is equally fallacious. This can be shown by a single ill.u.s.tration. We will suppose there are two families, in both of which the father dies, leaving in one case a widow and one son, and in the other a widow and six daughters. Where is now the family representation? The son whom we will suppose to be of age, goes to the polls and we will suppose sufficiently represents the family to which he belongs; but where is the family representation for the other widow and her six daughters? She may be the largest tax-payer in the State, and yet she can have no voice in determining what taxes shall be laid, nor to what purposes the money shall be appropriated.

The question whether the family is the basis of the State cannot be made an abstract question of political philosophy. Indeed the question is unmeaning when put as an abstract one. We might just as well ask, "Is the climate cold in a State?" or, "Is the English language spoken in a State?" It is only as we ask these questions about a _particular_ State that they have any meaning. "Is it cold in Russia?" "Is English spoken in Connecticut?"

Take the case of a State ruled by a despot. Here the people are not the political basis of the State, either as families or as individuals. They have no political power whatever. The political basis of the State is the will of the despot. He is himself and alone the State politically. He makes the laws himself, and shoots and hangs those who disobey them. The people are indispensable to the State, and so in one sense its basis, just as the square miles that compose its territory are its physical basis, but the people stand in no political relation whatever to the State, any more than the rocks and gravel of its territory. It is only where the people of the State have the whole or a part of its political power, that the question can possibly arise as to whether individuals or families are its political basis. And when it thus arises, it comes up wholly with reference to a particular State, and not as an abstract question. And then it is wholly a question of fact, not one of political philosophy; a matter for simple ascertainment, not for speculation and reasoning. Thus, suppose the question to be, "Is the family or the individual the political basis of the State of Connecticut?" We are to answer the question solely by looking at the const.i.tution and laws of the State. We look there and find that it is as clear as language can make it that the political basis of the State is the individual and not the family. The individual is made the voter--not the family--and that is the whole question. It was perfectly easy for the people, if they had so desired, when they were adopting a const.i.tution, to make families and not individuals the depositaries of political power, but they chose to give the power to individuals, and thus the question is absolutely settled for the State. It is true, the State does not carry out completely its own theory, but this was its theory, and what it did was wholly in this direction and away from the family theory. We go to the const.i.tution of the State to settle this question, just as we would to settle the question whether the governor's term is one year or two, or whether the judges hold office for a term of years or for life. While considering whether either of these provisions ought to be adopted, we are dealing with a matter proper for opinions and argument, but when the provisions have been adopted, the whole question becomes one of fact, and we look only to the const.i.tution to determine it, and treat it as a matter not for discussion but for absolute ascertainment.

When one is advocating the theory that the family should be the political basis of the State, he is simply saying that the const.i.tution ought to be amended and the right of voting taken away from individuals and given to families. But it is idle to urge this. Such a measure would not get even a respectable minority of votes. It is decisive on this point that not a single representative government, so far as the writer knows, has adopted the theory that the family and not the individual should vote. A law peculiar to Russia gives its villages, in the management of their local matters, the right of voting by families--a perfect ill.u.s.tration, on a very small scale, of the family as the political basis of a State. But here woman suffrage is admitted as a necessary result; and where there is no man to represent the family, or he is unable to attend, the woman of the house casts the vote.

The advocates of woman suffrage have no interest whatever in this question, as it is idle to suppose that it can become a practical one. The writer has taken what trouble he has in the matter solely in the interest of correct thinking.

_Hartford, May, 1879._

CHAPTER x.x.xVII.

NEW YORK.

_Brief on the Legislature's Power to Extend the Suffrage, Submitted February 19, 1880, to the Judiciary Committee of the a.s.sembly of the State of New York._

BY HAMILTON WILc.o.x.

I. LEGISLATURE OMNIPOTENT.--Unlike the Federal const.i.tution, the State const.i.tution does not reserve all powers not expressly delegated. It is held by the authorities that in the absence of positive restriction the legislature is omnipotent.